THOMAS P T Vs. CHANDRAN A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN employer came to this Court with this Original Petition challenging Ext. P7 order passed by the authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 directing payment of subsistence allowance to the 1st respondent. He also sought for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1972 is Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972

(2.) PETITIONER is no more and subsequently, his legal heirs have sought impleadment as per C. M. P. No. 8204/95. I am separately allowing that C. M. P. today. Petitioner submits that Ext. P7 is violative of principles of natural justice, in so far as the Deputy Labour Commissioner empowered as authority under the Subsistence Allowance Act to exercise the powers of the Government under Section 4 of the said Act, did not give him an opportunity. Therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice. He submits that, as the order is passed by that authority, that authority ought to have rendered him an opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, he sent the papers to the Conciliation Of ficer and the Conciliation Officer had issued notice to the parties and heard the parties and he sent a report to the Authority and the Authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner, passed Ext. P7 order. Thus there was no proper opportunity to submit his case, petitioner submits.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that the petitioner had been given an opportunity by the Conciliation Officer, to whom the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Authority, who passed Ext. P7 had sent the papers. In a recent Supreme Court decision (Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT 1997 (1) SC 243 similar contention was examined by the Supreme Court. In that case the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna issued notice to certain employees whose services were liable to be terminated. "accordingly all the concerned officials were given opportunity to submit show cause replied before the Director-in-chief, Health Services, Bihar, of Patna. A Committee of the Officers was appointed to review the show cause replies and information received in course of personal hearings. The committee had to review the merits/demerits of the appointments under question in the light of policy and procedures prescribed by Government from time to time for appointment in Public Service and submit its recommendation to the Government. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that appointment of this review committee was after the personal hearing before the Director-in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna and, therefore, this violated the basic principles of natural justice. It is difficult to agree. All the concerned appointees whose appointments were to be filtered were given personal hearing by the Director-in-chief. Therefore the said Review Committee was only to scrutinise the data collected during the personal hearing by the Director -in-Chief of Health Services and on that basis the Committee decided the question of legality and validity of their appointments. Thus the basic principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been violated by the Committee which ultimately took the decision on the basis of the personal hearing given to the concerned employees and after considering what they had to say regarding their appointments. Whatever was submitted by the' concerned employees was taken into consideration and then the committee came to a firm decision to the effect that all those appointments made by Dr. Mallick were vitiated from the inception and were required to be set aside. " In this case also the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Act on receipt of an application from the 1st respondent forwarded it to the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer heard the parties, collected the details and afforded them an opportunity and drew up a report and the report was sent to the Authority, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner took decision as per Ext. P7. The aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case applies to the facts framed in this case also and it cannot therefore be said as violative of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, that contention is not sustainable.